REACTION PAPER to ''When was ‘the post-colonial’? Thinking at the limit” by Stuart Hall 

V. Tais Yáñez.

1 Nov 2021

In his paper “When was ‘the post-colonial’? Thinking at the limit” ,  Stuart Hall poses the question of what postcolonial theory is. He starts by examining what the prefix ‘post’ even implies,  whether we should think of it epistemologically or chronologically, whether both, critics and proponents, benefit or may find common ground. The answers, it seems, may not be absolute.

 Hall draws from previous analysis by critics of postcolonial thought like Ella Shohat, Arif Dirlik, Anne McClintock, Lata Mani and Ruth Frakenberg to touch on many of the different aspects of  postcolonial theorisation, namely, eurocentric discourse, capitalism, power, hybridity and cultural hegemony, and knowledge. 

Firstly, it was thought-provoking for me how just examining the prefix ‘post’ alone gives a sense on how to approach the question of when postcolonialism was.  I realised how it confirmed some of my existing views, and made me lean more to the critical side of the debate as a starting point.  Thinking of other examples of ‘post’ such as post-structuralism, post-impressionism, post-war I interpret it as a response to a main event or movement which proceeds to become significant on its own merit but still carries the legacy.   

 Hall’s paper shows why semantics matter. Why, in my view, ‘post’ should not mean ‘end of’ and “It is not only ‘after’ but ‘going beyond’ the colonial” (Hall, 2002).  Approaching postcolonialism as a Eurocentric theory of termination of colonisation defies its purpose because it explores non colonist cultures and politics from the coloniser’s perspective. 

 Therefore, post-colonialism as an ongoing process beyond the historical period challenges the post-colonialism that implies an end of colonialism altogether. This idea of it as an event in the distant past is often expressed by the current leaders of former colonising powers, and many sectors of society on the right, left and center in Europe, the USA, and, tellingly, some elites in former colonies because it cannot be expected that the end of colonisation in a chronological sense implies actual  automatic decolonisation.

This rhetoric is used to dismiss the calls for reparations and land back claims. They  fail to acknowledge the fact that the development of Europe and the USA as dominant capitalist and ideological powers has been possible thanks to the ongoing exploitation of people and resources from the former colonies, which they left underdeveloped and which play a mere secondary role in the narrative, including in Marxism and Left wing ideologies.

In his paper Hall says that “The post-colonial critics are, in effect, unwitting spokespersons for the new global capitalist order”.  I first agreed with Hall in this assertion but upon consideration,  I think it should only be applied to those who see post-colonialism from ‘the strict chronologies of history tout court’ (Shohat, 1992,), as though the colonial period is gone and took its legacy with it. 

It is important to remember most processes of independence were only beneficial to the ‘criollo’ class, the local Europeanised elite who kept the colonial structures and borders, and whose descendants in many cases are still part of the ruling classes in their countries. In this sense the word ‘post-colonialism’ is nothing but a ‘diplomatic gesture’ (Shohat, 1992), not to be confused with actual ‘decolonisation’. 

Another elite I agree to include in this group are “Third World intellectuals making good in prestige ‘Ivy League’ American universities”' (Dirlik, 1994, as cited in Hall, 2002)  who take advantage of the “marketability’ of the term ‘post-colonial’” (McClintock, 1992, as cited in Hall, 2002) and yet follow eurocentric thought, and political movements in an attempt to assess, define and solve local problems based on colonial values and frameworks, be it Neoliberalism or Marxism and in between. I think this to be true in the Latin American context, for instance.

Some of these intellectuals, and the education systems in modern independent nations even justify colonisation, and theorise its apparent beneficial effect.  The meaning of post-colonialism here is simply “different ways of ‘staging the encounters’ between the colonising societies and their ‘others’ (Mani and Frakenberg, 1993, as cited in Hall, 2002).  A close, binary, symbiotic, and positive relationship between the colonial powers and  the post independence elite is a social and political construct that dominates history and the discourses of national and personal identity, culture, and even the economy. 

Like Shohat (1992,)  I find the concepts of hybridity and syncretism rather problematic. The post-colonial  invention of ‘mestizaje’ in Latin America, for instance, erases indigenous and afro descendant identities, cultures, and all the human and collective rights they grant. I think post-colonial theory should be used to assess and challenge the colonial structures still in existence but is instead used to consolidate hegemonic power of the former colonists. (Shohat, 1992)  

This Eurocentric hegemonic discourse, which is controlled no longer just by Europe but also by the in-house colonist elites,  is damaging to the many worldwide anticolonial and anticapitalist struggles in their fight against systemic racism, extractivism, occupation, ethnic cleansing and displacement of Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples inasmuch as  “it dissolves the politics of resistance “because it posits no clear domination and calls for no clear opposition”(Shohat, 1992) or solidarity. 

In this regard, a question Dirlik (1994, as cited in Hall, 2002) makes which I see of great significance is why “a consideration of the relationship between post-colonialism and global capitalism should be absent from the writings of post-colonial intellectuals.” 

I think this omission has the purpose of preventing the discussion on how capitalism has developed and thrived thanks to colonisation and post-colonial trade relations, or neo-colonisation. It denies responsibility for the exploitative asymmetric relationship and development divide  between the Global North and the Global South, between former empires and their former colonies. 

Post-colonialism, if seen as a brand new chapter in the history of humanity, also erases unacknowledged acts of genocide, crimes perpetrated by the powers, forced migrations and assimilation, cultural and religious imposition, and resistance during and, indeed, after the historical colonial period. 

In Shohat’s (1992)  words “post-colonial discourse sometimes seems to define any attempt to recover or inscribe a communal past as a form of idealisation, despite its significance as a site of resistance and collective identity”. As though political struggle or economic considerations did not fall into the postcolonial remit but only certain approved hybridised remnants of the colonised cultures. Such idealisation causes a disconnect between history and the present and only picks cultural aspects. That is why, for instance, people can admire pre-colonial Indigenous artifacts in museums or enjoy aspects of African cultures and yet participate in the oppression of the living descendants at all levels of society.

Hall (2002) then wonders if thinking of the cultural consequences of colonisation through a hybrid point of view, and using the post-colonialism framework implies questioning “cultural power and political struggle (which) had to be different from how cultures would have developed”. Here I ponder who would be invited to answer these questions and whether the Black, Brown, Asian and Indigenous peoples currently rising up in resistance against systemic racism and colonial-era structural violence, and in defense of the environment, their territories and autonomy,  would lead the discussion. 

In my view, history has taught us that, more often than not, when non colonising cultures have tried to work within the coloniser’s frameworks, post-colonial or other, it has resulted in further erasure, invalidation of their struggle and co-option of identity to sanitise neo-colonial policies including aid, displacement of people, invasion, and forced assimilation. Even now. 

In addition to this I think this question is, in itself, an example of  post-colonial thought (in the termination of colonialism sense), as well as othering, inasmuch as it plays with the prevalent Western narrative that those cultures either do not exist anymore or they have not developed at all or, indeed, not developed in comparison to the coloniser’s  idea of civilisation. This is in fact what “the dominant western historiographical tradition has often tried to do.” (Hall, 2002)

 In closing, I don’t think Hall’s question may elicit a simple ‘right or wrong’ answer, nor is it ‘either...or’. Hall (2002) himself in his conclusion admits that “we always knew that the dismantling of the colonial paradigm would release strange demons from the deep”. I think that in order for post-colonialism to effectively tame the demons to address the latent legacy of colonisation, for decolonisation to truly happen,  it must focus on its intertwinement with capitalism and modern imperialism, prioritising the human and environmental negative effects it still has on non colonising cultures. For this it is vital to understand the prefix ‘post’ to mean ‘going beyond and transcend’  as opposed to ‘the end of’ and “re-read the very binary form in which the colonial encounter has for so long itself been represented” (Hall, 2002) 

REFERENCES

Hall, Stuart (1996) “When was ‘the post-colonial‘? Thinking at the Limit,” The Post-Colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons, eds. Iain Chambers and Lidia Curti , London: Routledge. https://readingtheperiphery.org/hall/

Shohat, E. (1992). Notes on the “Post-Colonial.” Social Text, 31/32, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/466220